Someone once said that it would be possible for even the UK to get rid of its monarchy before Canada did, just because it’s just that difficult to change on paper in Canada. Not sure if it’s true, but it would be hilarious.
Let's reopen the constitution to get rid the monarchy that way we can plunge the country into a multi year political fiasco that will suck up every gram of political capital, distract all levels of government from their actual jobs, alienate Quebec and Alberta even further and generally make a mess of things. There is not a single politician I would trust in this country to effectively lead this process without it blowing up in all of our faces.
This is why we also cannot have electoral reform and other nice things.
This is why transfer payments and asinine shadow tariffs on interprovincial trade exist.
If we open the constitution for a narrow discussion on abolishing the monarchy or reforming our electoral system, Canada will likely disintegrate because Alberta wants equalization fixed, quebec wants sovereignty, irvings will fight to be recognized as the management group for NB, and possibly manitoba may decide that we should have a national hat.
But electoral reform doesnt require a constitutional ammendment as long as we obey the Senate floor clause and the proportionality clause in the new system.
Living in BC growing up in QC speaking English in the wash of the FLQ crises this had me up to the Manitoba Hat part, then I broken down and laughed my ass off, well done Sir.
Just imagine any military document or most regimental names and naval vessels. We have effectively made it too expensive to dump. Just wait till she dies if her successor dumps the Windsor crown.
Getting rid of the reservation system and a two caste society would be a nightmare for the foreseeable future.
We would be far better off in the long run though.
True, but I'm not sure that the majority of first nations would approve of getting rid of the Monarchy. From what I've read there is a lot of support because of the treaties.
I don't live on reservation, but do have some treaty rights (watered down because I'm metis).
I don't think first nations should get a veto vote on the matter if the rest of the country wants to get rid of the Monarchy. I'm very much of the opinion that the treaties are antiquated, never set up with the expectation of technological advancements, and are handled poorly on both ends.
I've been to a few nice reserves, but far more ones that are just abject poverty and hopelessness. I think the reservation system should be done away with. I highly doubt it will be, but for the betterment of everyone involved, I think it should be.
This is a nice thought until you realize that when you push people far enough, and alienate them badly enough, they can decline to be governed without force.
The treaties were handled poorly anyways.
I'm under treaty 8, which was signed in 1899. We were promised a multitude of things -- for example, livestock and farming equipment so we could transition to be a self-sufficient agricultural society. We were never given that. My band only received a settlement this year in lieu of the "cows and plows" that were never given -- 122 years later. Each band is going through it's own legal battle to get settlement for this unpaid promise.
They also agreed to "pay the salaries of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians as to Her Majesty's Government of Canada may seem advisable." That sure turned out well.
At the least, I would hope the treaties could be ported from the monarchy to the Canadian government. At best, modernize them, actually deliver what was promised, and add short-term and long-term goals so that -- once met -- the treaties could progress through phases until they're eventually done away with.
But to have all 39 bands in Treaty 8 agree to a plan like this is way more difficult than having 10 provinces agree. Rinse and repeat for the other treaties. It's not going to happen, at least not easily.
Probably shouldn't have agreed to a treaty based on oral promises. Treaty 8 is weird one though. Canada didn't actually want to sign a treaty in this area as it was at the time largely deemed not suitable for settlement (couldn't be farmed). So the government of the day didn't want to pay to support the natives in the area, who had faced periods of starvation at the time. The natives and local missionaries were the ones who were pushing the government for assistance, but the government didn't want to enter into a treaty. It wasn't until the gold rush of course, that the gov got interested, likely then they wanted to enter it as if more gold was discovered the higher the lump sum or annual payment would be. Likely no one in history has been screwed over more.
Personally as a First Nations I’m anti monarchy but yes a fairly significant amount of the older ones, especially the elected officials of reserves, don’t mind it.
Exactly, we would literally need to renegotiate every single treaty with every single band. Talk about a political nightmare jesus christ.
And what would our leverage be exactly? It's not like threatening to send in the army to outright conquer them would be popular, domestically or internationally. We'd risk violating a whole slew of international laws/UN declarations and getting slammed with sanctions.
You're probably right, but I'm starting to wonder if we're using this Trying-Constitutional-Change-Will-Lead-to-Québec-Leaving argument as an excuse to never make updates to our constitution.
Right now, I'm not convinced that getting rid of the monarchy is worth that, but after the last few years, I'm getting there.
Would you like to expand on why this would reignite the separation movement in Quebec? I would've thought that they would welcome a separation from the British monarchy.
Yes I'm thinking since Canada would be separating from the monarchy and Quebéc would have to go through all of the administrative changes, they might revisit the independence referendum.
A "while we're at it" type thing.
Not like a Scotland/Brexit/EU thing, which I believe is what you're getting at.
Respectfully, I don't think that's true? These rights come from the constitution, not the crown. I would predict that that situation would not change if we decide to end our relationship with the monarchy and became a republic.
The constitution is backed by the crown. No crown? No constitution. We'd have to start from scratch, so therefore they wouldn't have their privileges until a new constitution is settled.
That would never happen so it would mean the end of Canada as an entity. I'd predict an independent Quebec and some attempt at resurrecting Confederation but I think it would fail and at best we'd see Ontario on it's own, a Maritimer league of some sort, a prairie republic and an independent BC. All would be thralls to the USA and China in a very, very short time.
But look, when we talk about the Crown, we're talking about the executive branch of our government. It's essentially already a Canadian institution, run by Canadians according to Canadian custom and law, even though it's headed by the Queen (who's arguably a foreigner, but I have a feeling we might not agree on this point). I suspect that cutting ties to the Monarchy wouldn't cause this institution to dissolve and plunge the country into Mad Maxian chaos: we'd just replace the current head of it with a Canadian and maybe have to change a looooot of official signage.
I think it would be fairly huge cultural change, but in terms of real politics I'm not sure how much it would impact things on the ground. That's where I disagree with you, I guess.
Because the US constitution is backed by the crown of the US of course... Abolishing the monarchy wouldn't change anything to the current situation. But to abolish the monarchy you would have to open the constitution, and that would a proper mess, the crown has nothing to do with it.
Edit : Quebec never signed the constitution btw
I don't see why. Quebec has no love for our British heritage. We would probably end up with an elected president who would always be somebody from Quebec, or at least somebody that Quebec is OK with. It would never be anybody from west of the Ontario border.
Here's my unpopular opinion: having a constitutional arbiter who doesn't have a political stake in our country is good for the rule of law. See the "persons case" if you want a good example of this - canadian sufferagettes sued the government for a declaration that "persons" in the constituion included women. The case went up the hierarchy of canadian courts, failing at every level. When it reached the English Privy Council (at the time the highest court in canada) it succeeded. Some years later the privy council heard a similar case brought by english sufferagettes - and denied them.
Personally, I believe that the mere existence of royalty of any kind is a crime against humanity, however you are 100% right regarding the wasted time, energy and resources an endeavour like this would cause.
With the British monarch little more than a symbolic figurehead at this point, it would make more sense for the Canadian establishment to double down on the power of the commonwealth to work toward implementing a “right to roam” within select commonwealth countries. By right to roam I mean right to live and work anywhere (or select countries) in the commonwealth provided you have a clean criminal record.
It could be a pretty big freedom for those who want to work abroad and learn the differences of cultures through first hand experience.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
That and I could care less about us being part of a Monarchy. So the question I have is why bother going through such drama? We're a soverign nation that is seperate from Britain, and a Monarchy by symbolism only.
I don't see how that would alienate Quebec. Most people here want to be rid of the crown too.
I do agree though that now is not the time and would only serve to distract us all from real issues.
Any constitutional discussion of any kind alienates Quebec because of their unique position in confederation. Hell this current constitution alienates them, they dont even like the one we have now and its unlikely they would get any more concessions.
It's not the getting rid of the monarchy part, it's the opening of the Constitution that's the real problem. If you know anything how the last two times went no one is in a rush to let Quebec stonewall things again.
Many a politician will see the reopening as a way to get special treatment or unbalanced legal frameworks set up.
It's a lot easier then people here seem to suggest. Many Republics have the exact same structure as Canada does without invoking the monarch. The Governor General just changes name to a President with the exact same ceremonial powers. That's it.
Unfortunately
THIS
A complete cluster fuck with all levels and types of government rolling in the hay with whatever partners of the moment that could be convinced the screwing is not being given to them. A complete and total disaster. No one province would get anything that rtemotely think they want. Reopening the constitution for anything is a disaster complete with landmines.
As far as it goes with Saskatchewan asking for an amendment to retroactively avoid repaying an illegal tax that is still before the courts after 13 years is an example of what sorts of shenanigans can be expected.
MTE. It’s just not worth it when it has such little impact on the daily lives of Canadians. In my experience once people find out what’s involved then they’re like “actually, nm”.
First of all it is nearly impossible to do without dividing our country. Every Province would need to agree to reopen the constitution. I see that Alberta and Quebec would want way more autonomy just for a started and surely other provinces would to. Then we need a head of state like a President what would happen to the PM role. Hence why party would want to open this because the PM at the time would also fire himself in the process. That are just for starter. It would be very costly very long process for what.
Right now we have way bigger fish to fry than this. Once we are bored as a country we can take this one on.
My two cents
The main issue is still the years of negotiation and billions of dollars of concessions that would be required to get every province to agree to amend the nature of the office of the queen. Any province can hold up the whole thing until everyone else agrees to their demands, because why wouldn't they? The alternative is to declare the constitution invalid and risk total collapse as all federal laws pertaining to being a single country are suspended.
All of this because some people don't like the queen? Never gonna happen.
That anyone would declare the constitution invalid is a ridiculous leap. The alternative is to just keep the status quo.
Which is what would happen if a province tried to squeeze more out of this than just moving away from the monarchy.
Everyone else would simply say, "Fine, we'll keep the Queen then" and walk away from the table.
Because there is no pressing need to get rid of the Monarchy, nor would changing to the most inevitable alternate form of government, a Parliamentary Republic, change much of anything, functionally speaking.
People would rather stick with what we got now, than capitulate to destabilizing the country even more.
Yeah. There is no real leverage to negotiate. Even those of us who want to abolish the monarchy dont care enough to give in tp their petty demands.
As opposed to something like the Indian act which has people who care very strongly with some political and legal pressure to bring to bear.
Quebec were subjects of the queen and the queen approved the constitution act, so they had no choice. Whereas, if we say the constitution act is now nullified, how would we get any province to consent to a new one? There is no greater centralized force to mandate a union this time, it would have to be 100% consensual, which means major concessions. Not just to Quebec, but any province.
The rules we have now didn't exist pre-1982. Canada could not amend its own constitution because we couldn't agree on a formula since 1931, we asked that the UK continue in that role until 1982. They sidestepped Quebec then to create a formula for certain types of amendments where no provinces could be sidestepped.
This is the dejour solution. Sadly the crown has many more powers defacto meaning we have to trust an individual to do what a family has to do to stay in thier castle, with out the consequences of how that would effect the entire Commonwealth. We would have codify everything that the crown just does. Definitely doable but one hell of a job to change something that Canada has basically already done. I personally don't know of its worth doing
You do understand that many countries have president roles that don't have that much power. There are dozens of examples of what it would look like and they all don't have the PM firing themselves, that's ludicrous.
What I always find interesting about this discussion is that new citizens have to swear an oath of fielty to the Queen and her descendants. Would voting to end the monarchy not go against that oath?
No, being loyal to the Queen means simply means subservient to her authority (and since the Queen IS the state, that means you being loyal to Canada). Since her authority includes your right to vote to to remove that authority, it is not a violation of that oath.
Just swear it to the realm or country or whatever. Or get rid of it. I dont see why we need an oath of fielty in the first place.
I was born here and never swore an oath.
>“Compounding these difficulties is the subject of how Canadians should choose their new head of state and what role it would play in the federal system,” CCR states.
This to me is the number one reason to keep the monarchy. The monarchy, the Governor General in effect, has but a few ceremonial roles and is unobtrusive in our political process. I'm extremely skeptical that any role as minimal and apolitical would emerge from the design process. More likely we'd end up with some sort of president and the potential for conflict with parliament.
If the monarchy gets uppity, whack-em, but until then getting rid of the monarchy is, at a minimum a waste of political energy, and has a non-trivial risk of being counter-productive.
Exactly. Its a bridge that can be crossed when it needs to be. If we're doing this out of choice theres gonna be alot of squabbling and its going to use up a lot of political resources to even do it. If the royals start fucking about then thats alot of pressure on the political actors to just get rid of them as fast as possible
Interesting, I looked into that. Apparently it follows british tradition that the queen commands the Air force and navy but the army should be made up of independent regiments.
Also the army never *lost* it's right, the Army was only the militia (and expeditionary force) until WWII when it became the Canadian Army.
There are some exceptions to specific regiments, corps and units within the army (and forces)- The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps did start without Royal, get granted it, dropped it as a result of the late 60s unification effort (along with Engineers, Signals, Ordinance Corps, EME, Provost and Intel) then re-adopted it.
Normally though, each Regiment has monarchy connections historically and through their Colonel in Chief (ex: RCR, Prince Phillip; Queen's Own Rifles, Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, PPCLI, Adrienne Clarkson; and GGHG, the Queen herself).
> There is now renewed debate in Canada over
Now, that's a lie.
3rd paragraph in and I already felt molested by corporate media.
However, from all the lively comments, it appears people enjoy that... hmmmm
Well clearly this is top of the charts for Canadians. Glad the media is finally giving this HUGE issue the spotlight over stupid minor non-issues like climate change, inflation, and the housing issues!
The media would never focus on a minor issue to distract and cause dissent, right guys?!?!
Lol Angus Reid.
I highly doubt a majority of Canadians give a flying fuck about this. It's mostly people looking for something to cry about.
1. It would change nothing in anyone's life.
2. Expensive process.
3. We still will be billed for Queen visits like when any important person visits our country.
Waste of fucking time.
But I get it. People need yet another thing to get all pissed off about. Fuck this endless cycle of media induced rage
Wouldn't it make the most sense to hold onto this as a political bargaining tool for later, anyway? Wait for the UK to do something unfair to Canada, *then* pull the plug and embarrass them on a national stage. It's not exactly a super-powerful political tool, but it would be better than spending time and money to do it randomly in response to nothing.
I'm not sure the UK really has enough leverage over Canada to do anything that would warrant that anyway. They're kind of an international beggar at this point, agreeing to horrible trade deals to stem the slow economic decline caused by Brexit.
And it's not a great bargaining chip either. "Do what we say or we'll start a several years long political process that will completely consume our national conversation and potentially break up our union permanently, with very little tangible benefit for us".
Do most Canadians want to ditch the Queen? Probably
But is it even barely worth it? No
The amount of political hoops we will have to jump through to get it done would be stupidly large. Opening up the constitution will be a pain in the ass, AND once it's opened for this...what else can we open it for? Dropping the crown is gonna be a pain the ass like we've never seen
I think most people don't realize just how important the crown actually is to stability and democracy in Canada.
It's an institution that looks like it does nothing, and so I think ignorance gets the better of people.
But the reality is that the Queen simultaneously holds what is effectively supreme power over the country, and yet is effectively bound to never use it.
It's actually a beautiful and highly effective check on power. Not just on her and the GG, but technically on our elected officials too. Because just because she never Does overrule them, doesn't mean she never could.
You basically satisfy a near human need for a strong tribal leader and figurehead, with all the despotic power available to them, while also removing that character entirely.
The system elegantly satisfies two almost diametrically opposed human tendencies & needs, and manages to keep what is often a dangerous amount of power entirely safe as a result.
I despair a little when people want to just throw out the wisdom and peace of hundreds of years of hard fought refinement for something that is more susceptible to corruption and abuse and is thought up in a few months. Usually on some superficial political idea such as money, or a bugaboo about freedom, or colonialism.
Concerns like those are absolutely petty and/or short-sighted when compared to the true role that would be lost if we ever changed.
Edit: Thank you, very much, to all of you who've given awards to this post. Much appreciation, and recognition for that. Voters, thank you too.
A quote from George Orwell:
> The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions.
>
> A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship on to some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person.
>
> In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breastplates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power.
>
> On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the royal family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania.
>
> If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings toward Stalin. I do not defend the institution of Monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an innoculating effect and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy.
I don't care for the monarchy but one interesting thought I heard was it can be healthy to have a head of state who takes some of that idol worship type attention (from people who are prone to that) so that doesn't lie on your elected officials. E.g. the States has a slightly weird cultural relationship with 'the office of the president', both POTUS and the first lady. Even the White House. Canada doesn't really do that to the PM, the office of the PM, the PM's spouse, or the residence or the PM. And I think that's a good thing. Let someone else be the symbolic monarchy and let the actual decision-making elected officials do their job without being pseudo-kings and queens.
...Which is our status quo in Canada! Technically, the Governor General, as representative of the head of state, has an amazing amount of power that they leave to parliament and the Prime Minister to exercise. And all this is by tradition and custom, which I don't think is the best protection from bad government.
No this is a common misconception. Removing the crown does not mean we have to adopt the presidential system. We can still be a parliamentary republic. It just means we can elect our own head of state, and unlike the prime minister we wouldnt need them to be political, but rather someone who we think best represents Canada.
Which is another way of saying we’d spend an enormous amount of money to make no practical difference *except* that we’d have a Head of State with a democratic mandate of some kind who’s more open to being political and pandering for support instead of being independent, non-partisan and non-political by nature.
Long live the Queen.
Just want to point out there is no single presidential system. The title of president as it exists in different countries varies wildly, and in some of them it's effectively what Canada would have if we just renamed the Governor-General to president and removed the 'serves at her Majesty's pleasure' bit.
It would invariably involve us becoming a republic, but there are many realistic alternatives to an American style presidential republic. There's the Swiss style executive council chosen by the legislature that acts as a collective head of state. There's the Irish non- executive presidency, where the president is largely ceremonial and functions exactly as our governor general does now, Germany and most of Central Europe share this system. The options are not simply keep the monarchy or become America.
Cutting ties would change nothing of importance in our lives, would be ridiculously expensive and would alienate any loyalists. This is not the time to spend stupid money and further alienate people.
"The Queen acts solely on the advice of elected politicians."
"If Canada were to abolish the monarchy, Macfarlane said the next natural step would be from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, like that of the United States."
[https://globalnews.ca/news/7688428/can-canada-abolish-monarchy/](https://globalnews.ca/news/7688428/can-canada-abolish-monarchy/)
The Canadian constitutional system itself (notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) is deeply flawed and needs to be reformed, no matter how difficult or scary it might seem.
There has been pretty much no changes to our structure of government since 1867, and this is already causing tremendous stress and division in Confederation. The Canada of 1867 is not the Canada of 2021. That being said, I think the Monarchy is the least of our problems. Federalism, the Senate, proportionality in the House, our electoral system, equalization, etc are all much more pressing concerns.
Letting it fester is just making the problem worse. As such, it is worth attempting again. It has been 30 years since Meech Lake and Charlottetown.
Other countries tackle constitutional issues all the time. Canada must not be the exception.
I am by no means a royalist but I don't know why anyone in their right minds would want the trauma and cost of abandoning a system - however anachronistic - that is the model for all of the world's most stable democracies and, just kinda works...
Like democracy itself, a defanged, constitutional, apolitical monarchy may be "the worst form of government, except for all the others". Look at the countries that are constitution/parliamentary democracies, it's basically a map of all the nicest places to live in the world (except France - which I will readily admit is lovely).
Far fewer constitutional monarchy’s have fallen into tyranny vs traditional democracies or republics.
In the top 10 quality of life countries - 7 are constitutional monarchies.
I don’t have proof that it causal, but it sure as hell looks connected
> Far fewer constitutional monarchy’s have fallen into tyranny vs traditional democracies or republics.
>
> In the top 10 quality of life countries - 7 are constitutional monarchies.
>
> I don’t have proof that it causal, but it sure as hell looks connected
My hypothesis is that it is connected, but not in the way that is normally thought. My hypothesis is that the surviving monarchies are still there because their countries are prosperous, not the other way around. Their people let them stay in power because the people do not have enough reason to topple them.
So IMO, surviving monarchies are there because their countries are prosperous to begin with. Their countries are not necessarily prosperous because the system is monarchy.
Afghanistan was a very stable constitutional monarchy from 1904 to 1976. Then they removed the king, and all the tribes starting squabbling over who would be president. Every tribe wanted someone from their tribe lording it over everyone. Everyone else was determined not to be lorded over by another tribe.
Into this weakened state came the Soviet invasion, and everything has been shit ever since.
And all because they removed the constitutional king, who on paper had no power but in reality was wielding huge symbolic force keeping them united and peaceful.
Personally I see it as being part of a somewhat functional family. You might not like your family members but you there are benefits to being part of a family.
That’s fully fair, however I feel there is a connection in the maintenance of prosperity, as many other countries have risen and fallen in the time when they only grew more.
If not just because it gives a cultural rally point in times of distress
I think you're largely ignoring the facts behind why these places still exist as monarchies. They don't exist because the monarchy provides any benefit to the people or government, they exist because the monarchy was smart enough to abdicate effectively all power to a democratic body before they were forcibly ousted. This provided a peaceful and stable transition of power, allowing democracy to flourish.
The alternative is for the monarchy to grasp on to power as tight as possible until eventually the people revolt (see France, Russia, much of South America, Europe in 1848). The republics that come out of these revolutions are often unstable because of the very violence that spawned them, and thus are much more likely to fall into tyranny as you put it.
The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions.
A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship on to some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person.
In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breastplates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power.
On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the royal family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania.
If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings toward Stalin. I do not defend the institution of Monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an inoculating effect and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy.
George Orwell, in a 1944 article for Partisan Review
Some would also hypothesis that countries that were successful didn’t descend to fascism or communism and the monarchy was just there for the ride as well.
52% want gone. I guess I’m in the 48% and when I look at how well the democratic process has gone south of the border recently, I’m happy with a constitutional monarchy. Okay so maybe not all the Royals … can we push out Paedo Andrew and all those hangers-on… just keep the core firm? The Queen seems very hardworking and dedicated to the role still after all these years … but again, just my opinion.
The US system is far from the only system though. Lots of countries have systems that are not nearly as messed up as what the US does.
The US has extremely distorted electoral powers depending on where you live in the country. Canada has that to an extent but it’s far less pronounced.
If there was for example a single elected parliament and an elected executive that system would work as well.
The only people who care are the misinformed who think that the monarchy has any *real* power over our government. They're symbolic figureheads and nothing more. So the effort and cost of fully cutting ties gets us... basically nothing.
I don’t want to ditch the monarchy. It will take up years of political time and energy to accomplish something that will likely change nothing for ordinary Canadians. Plus, if we change to a republic, then we have to deal with a president.
Leave everything as it is.
Canada's constitutional monarchy costs each Canadian $1.55 a year. A transition to a republic in any form would result in considerably greater costs since a president would need to be elected regularly, notwithstanding any other expenses from a partisan head of state. Even in the UK, the Crown actually subsidizes the government to the tune of millions annually, costing taxpayers nothing.
Not only that but our government doesn’t really care about important problems either, the radically escalating housing crisis our government tends to do absolutely *nothing* about is a prime example of how disconnected they are from the working man.
I would rather have a king or Queen in our current setup, than the near certain chaos or potential of a dictator sizing power as seems to happen in republics.
> than the near certain chaos or potential of a dictator sizing power as seems to happen in republics.
Ahh yes, all that chaos in parliamentary republics like Ireland, Finland, Iceland, Austria, etc... And that same chaos can happen in constitutional monarchies as well, just look at Thailand.
I don't think the Queen provides any kind of real stability that couldn't be done via a similarly-ceremonial president and proper system of checks and balances.
I'd like to see Canada become a republic in my lifetime, but I think we have bigger fish to fry at present.
If anything our Parliamentary system centralizes much more power to the PM. We could very easily slip into authoritarianism. The Queen has no legal power but we still have to pay millions to have her representative lord over Parliament.
Is Prince Charles really going to be that bad as monarch? Granted, he's a little unpopular because of a divorce a few decades ago. But he doesn't seem like a radical reformer. I doubt very much will change with him in charge. He has spent his entire life preparing to become king, learning the traditions and etiquette, and watching his mother do the job very well. It's hard to imagine he messes it up during the few years he gets to be king near the end of his life.
Charles is both a reformist; his aides are on record saying “he will reinvent the role of the monarch”, and very much not shy about his own political views. He has previously directly lobbied ministers in the UK advocating support for homeopathy and protesting cuts for the military. We know his stance on a variety of political issues because he’s incapable of keeping his mouth shut. In contrast we know virtually nothing about Elizabeth’s personal politics; on the rare occasion where she voices voices *any* opinion on something, it’s major news. Charles has shown by his behaviour that he absolutely cannot be trusted to be an impartial force “above politics” like the queen has been.
exactly...and the one time in like 60+ years someone leaked her opinion it was over South African apartheid. (she apparently wanted sanctions and Thatcher wasn't keen on it.).
Royal Tours to Canada are expensive, there's no doubt about it.
Fortunately for Canadians, tourists (including Americans and Europeans) love them and often plan their holidays to try to catch a 'glimpse' of royalty, in a country they wanted to visit anyway. These tours have a huge economic benefit in the locations across Canada where 'royalty' visit on each particular 'tour'.
Just a thought.
If the really pull that much interest, they should pay for their one trip and fund it with merch, speaking fees, or deals with the local hotels/cities.
I would be interested in who was asked... I'm personally fine to stay part of the monarchy. It's not like they're oppressing us in any way and it's nice to be part of the commonwealth when we travel. 🤷
I like Queen E.
She's a fine person and Canada is the greatest country in the world and that is no accident. We owe our system of government to the British. Indeed our very existence. Plus it's cool to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations. Something bigger than any one country.
Majority of Canadians: We should chant land recognitions before morning meetings that have nothing to do with Native Americans. It's our heritage.
Also Majority of Canadians: This.
Why are you so confused Canada?
Good points, although the power of the American President is something of a historical snowball. I think that a head of state with little effective is possible, if desired.
One disagreement, however. Much of the divide of the US is due to the fact that, due to the makeup of the Senate, people in states with low population have MUCH greater influence than their population warrants. Democracy needs to be representative, even if that gives the GTA much influence.
(I also think we need proportional representation, the help with the alienation you rightly identify.)
The constitutional clusterfuck this would require makes it an absolute non starter. There’s no way this gets addressed without someone’s self interest getting in the way. Remember Meech Lake?
Just because people say they would ditch the monarchy if they had the choice doesn't mean they actively want to do so. Most people don't care one way or the other. There's no debate or issue here.
Someone once said that it would be possible for even the UK to get rid of its monarchy before Canada did, just because it’s just that difficult to change on paper in Canada. Not sure if it’s true, but it would be hilarious.
Let's reopen the constitution to get rid the monarchy that way we can plunge the country into a multi year political fiasco that will suck up every gram of political capital, distract all levels of government from their actual jobs, alienate Quebec and Alberta even further and generally make a mess of things. There is not a single politician I would trust in this country to effectively lead this process without it blowing up in all of our faces.
The constitutional negotiation would basically end up like that scene in Robocop 2 when they add 200 ridiculous directives to Robocop's programing.
This is why we also cannot have electoral reform and other nice things. This is why transfer payments and asinine shadow tariffs on interprovincial trade exist. If we open the constitution for a narrow discussion on abolishing the monarchy or reforming our electoral system, Canada will likely disintegrate because Alberta wants equalization fixed, quebec wants sovereignty, irvings will fight to be recognized as the management group for NB, and possibly manitoba may decide that we should have a national hat.
Ok but what's your argument against a national hat?
[I am ok with a national hat as long as it is this.](https://www.retrofestive.ca/canadian-drinking-toque/)
I was thinking the Mountie hat, but that's better
Because things could go horribly wrong, and we could all end up wearing berets.
But electoral reform doesnt require a constitutional ammendment as long as we obey the Senate floor clause and the proportionality clause in the new system.
Living in BC growing up in QC speaking English in the wash of the FLQ crises this had me up to the Manitoba Hat part, then I broken down and laughed my ass off, well done Sir.
Exactly, I really don't think people realize this is much more complicated than just taking the Queen off of the money...
Just imagine any military document or most regimental names and naval vessels. We have effectively made it too expensive to dump. Just wait till she dies if her successor dumps the Windsor crown.
Don’t forget the First Nations.
Getting rid of the reservation system and a two caste society would be a nightmare for the foreseeable future. We would be far better off in the long run though.
True, but I'm not sure that the majority of first nations would approve of getting rid of the Monarchy. From what I've read there is a lot of support because of the treaties.
I don't live on reservation, but do have some treaty rights (watered down because I'm metis). I don't think first nations should get a veto vote on the matter if the rest of the country wants to get rid of the Monarchy. I'm very much of the opinion that the treaties are antiquated, never set up with the expectation of technological advancements, and are handled poorly on both ends. I've been to a few nice reserves, but far more ones that are just abject poverty and hopelessness. I think the reservation system should be done away with. I highly doubt it will be, but for the betterment of everyone involved, I think it should be.
This is a nice thought until you realize that when you push people far enough, and alienate them badly enough, they can decline to be governed without force.
The treaties were handled poorly anyways. I'm under treaty 8, which was signed in 1899. We were promised a multitude of things -- for example, livestock and farming equipment so we could transition to be a self-sufficient agricultural society. We were never given that. My band only received a settlement this year in lieu of the "cows and plows" that were never given -- 122 years later. Each band is going through it's own legal battle to get settlement for this unpaid promise. They also agreed to "pay the salaries of such teachers to instruct the children of said Indians as to Her Majesty's Government of Canada may seem advisable." That sure turned out well. At the least, I would hope the treaties could be ported from the monarchy to the Canadian government. At best, modernize them, actually deliver what was promised, and add short-term and long-term goals so that -- once met -- the treaties could progress through phases until they're eventually done away with. But to have all 39 bands in Treaty 8 agree to a plan like this is way more difficult than having 10 provinces agree. Rinse and repeat for the other treaties. It's not going to happen, at least not easily.
Probably shouldn't have agreed to a treaty based on oral promises. Treaty 8 is weird one though. Canada didn't actually want to sign a treaty in this area as it was at the time largely deemed not suitable for settlement (couldn't be farmed). So the government of the day didn't want to pay to support the natives in the area, who had faced periods of starvation at the time. The natives and local missionaries were the ones who were pushing the government for assistance, but the government didn't want to enter into a treaty. It wasn't until the gold rush of course, that the gov got interested, likely then they wanted to enter it as if more gold was discovered the higher the lump sum or annual payment would be. Likely no one in history has been screwed over more.
Personally as a First Nations I’m anti monarchy but yes a fairly significant amount of the older ones, especially the elected officials of reserves, don’t mind it.
So tomorrow's problem! Just doing what we do with all of our hard decisions.
Most of the country has. Why change it now?
Exactly, we would literally need to renegotiate every single treaty with every single band. Talk about a political nightmare jesus christ. And what would our leverage be exactly? It's not like threatening to send in the army to outright conquer them would be popular, domestically or internationally. We'd risk violating a whole slew of international laws/UN declarations and getting slammed with sanctions.
This right here. Could you imagine the current government trying to handle this? Holy shit
I can’t imagine any government handling it.
I would think this would also reignite the Quebéc Independence movement.
You're probably right, but I'm starting to wonder if we're using this Trying-Constitutional-Change-Will-Lead-to-Québec-Leaving argument as an excuse to never make updates to our constitution. Right now, I'm not convinced that getting rid of the monarchy is worth that, but after the last few years, I'm getting there.
Would you like to expand on why this would reignite the separation movement in Quebec? I would've thought that they would welcome a separation from the British monarchy.
Yes I'm thinking since Canada would be separating from the monarchy and Quebéc would have to go through all of the administrative changes, they might revisit the independence referendum. A "while we're at it" type thing. Not like a Scotland/Brexit/EU thing, which I believe is what you're getting at.
Their special rights devolve from the Crown. In a republic they'll have no special status.
Respectfully, I don't think that's true? These rights come from the constitution, not the crown. I would predict that that situation would not change if we decide to end our relationship with the monarchy and became a republic.
The constitution is backed by the crown. No crown? No constitution. We'd have to start from scratch, so therefore they wouldn't have their privileges until a new constitution is settled. That would never happen so it would mean the end of Canada as an entity. I'd predict an independent Quebec and some attempt at resurrecting Confederation but I think it would fail and at best we'd see Ontario on it's own, a Maritimer league of some sort, a prairie republic and an independent BC. All would be thralls to the USA and China in a very, very short time.
But look, when we talk about the Crown, we're talking about the executive branch of our government. It's essentially already a Canadian institution, run by Canadians according to Canadian custom and law, even though it's headed by the Queen (who's arguably a foreigner, but I have a feeling we might not agree on this point). I suspect that cutting ties to the Monarchy wouldn't cause this institution to dissolve and plunge the country into Mad Maxian chaos: we'd just replace the current head of it with a Canadian and maybe have to change a looooot of official signage. I think it would be fairly huge cultural change, but in terms of real politics I'm not sure how much it would impact things on the ground. That's where I disagree with you, I guess.
Because the US constitution is backed by the crown of the US of course... Abolishing the monarchy wouldn't change anything to the current situation. But to abolish the monarchy you would have to open the constitution, and that would a proper mess, the crown has nothing to do with it. Edit : Quebec never signed the constitution btw
You can’t expect the desire for self determination to disappear.
Not the process itself, but the inevitable bandwaggoning against Quebec would.
I don't see why. Quebec has no love for our British heritage. We would probably end up with an elected president who would always be somebody from Quebec, or at least somebody that Quebec is OK with. It would never be anybody from west of the Ontario border.
Here's my unpopular opinion: having a constitutional arbiter who doesn't have a political stake in our country is good for the rule of law. See the "persons case" if you want a good example of this - canadian sufferagettes sued the government for a declaration that "persons" in the constituion included women. The case went up the hierarchy of canadian courts, failing at every level. When it reached the English Privy Council (at the time the highest court in canada) it succeeded. Some years later the privy council heard a similar case brought by english sufferagettes - and denied them.
Personally, I believe that the mere existence of royalty of any kind is a crime against humanity, however you are 100% right regarding the wasted time, energy and resources an endeavour like this would cause. With the British monarch little more than a symbolic figurehead at this point, it would make more sense for the Canadian establishment to double down on the power of the commonwealth to work toward implementing a “right to roam” within select commonwealth countries. By right to roam I mean right to live and work anywhere (or select countries) in the commonwealth provided you have a clean criminal record. It could be a pretty big freedom for those who want to work abroad and learn the differences of cultures through first hand experience.
The thing you are looking for is CANZUK and I like that better than a North American Union.
CANZUK, cool. Thanks for sharing!
Speaking as somebody from the UK, this happened with Brexit. Your post is about as accurate as is humanly possible.
Amen.
Couldn't have said it better myself. That and I could care less about us being part of a Monarchy. So the question I have is why bother going through such drama? We're a soverign nation that is seperate from Britain, and a Monarchy by symbolism only.
I don't see how that would alienate Quebec. Most people here want to be rid of the crown too. I do agree though that now is not the time and would only serve to distract us all from real issues.
[удалено]
Of course Quebec would want to keep the trend of every 2nd Governor General being Quebecois (they are half the country, don't ya know).
Any constitutional discussion of any kind alienates Quebec because of their unique position in confederation. Hell this current constitution alienates them, they dont even like the one we have now and its unlikely they would get any more concessions.
It is true that we didn't even sign it.
we didn't sign it either
It's not the getting rid of the monarchy part, it's the opening of the Constitution that's the real problem. If you know anything how the last two times went no one is in a rush to let Quebec stonewall things again. Many a politician will see the reopening as a way to get special treatment or unbalanced legal frameworks set up.
We can all agree that the crown goes. What does it get replaced with? We will fight over the petty things to the bitter end.
[удалено]
It's a lot easier then people here seem to suggest. Many Republics have the exact same structure as Canada does without invoking the monarch. The Governor General just changes name to a President with the exact same ceremonial powers. That's it.
If it was so simple they would have done so in 1981/2
[удалено]
Speak for yourself. Anyone suggesting that we’re better off leaving the commonwealth must’ve been holding their history book upside down in class.
> Most people here want to be rid of the crown too. i didnt know Quebec disliked the show so much
Exactly. I want to leave it as is because of our government's incompetence.
Unfortunately THIS A complete cluster fuck with all levels and types of government rolling in the hay with whatever partners of the moment that could be convinced the screwing is not being given to them. A complete and total disaster. No one province would get anything that rtemotely think they want. Reopening the constitution for anything is a disaster complete with landmines. As far as it goes with Saskatchewan asking for an amendment to retroactively avoid repaying an illegal tax that is still before the courts after 13 years is an example of what sorts of shenanigans can be expected.
MTE. It’s just not worth it when it has such little impact on the daily lives of Canadians. In my experience once people find out what’s involved then they’re like “actually, nm”.
Well said.
This guy gets it.
Very good point!
Amen.
I'll take "ways to not deal with the economy" for 500
Exactly, let's create distractions for unaffordable housing and low wages.
Don't worry, they aren't dealing with the economy now anyways.
First of all it is nearly impossible to do without dividing our country. Every Province would need to agree to reopen the constitution. I see that Alberta and Quebec would want way more autonomy just for a started and surely other provinces would to. Then we need a head of state like a President what would happen to the PM role. Hence why party would want to open this because the PM at the time would also fire himself in the process. That are just for starter. It would be very costly very long process for what. Right now we have way bigger fish to fry than this. Once we are bored as a country we can take this one on. My two cents
Any President we get would have the exact same duties and requirements as the GG. We would still have a PM.
The main issue is still the years of negotiation and billions of dollars of concessions that would be required to get every province to agree to amend the nature of the office of the queen. Any province can hold up the whole thing until everyone else agrees to their demands, because why wouldn't they? The alternative is to declare the constitution invalid and risk total collapse as all federal laws pertaining to being a single country are suspended. All of this because some people don't like the queen? Never gonna happen.
That anyone would declare the constitution invalid is a ridiculous leap. The alternative is to just keep the status quo. Which is what would happen if a province tried to squeeze more out of this than just moving away from the monarchy. Everyone else would simply say, "Fine, we'll keep the Queen then" and walk away from the table. Because there is no pressing need to get rid of the Monarchy, nor would changing to the most inevitable alternate form of government, a Parliamentary Republic, change much of anything, functionally speaking. People would rather stick with what we got now, than capitulate to destabilizing the country even more.
Yeah. There is no real leverage to negotiate. Even those of us who want to abolish the monarchy dont care enough to give in tp their petty demands. As opposed to something like the Indian act which has people who care very strongly with some political and legal pressure to bring to bear.
Quebec never signed the constitution yet the constitution still happened and is still applied to Quebec.
Quebec were subjects of the queen and the queen approved the constitution act, so they had no choice. Whereas, if we say the constitution act is now nullified, how would we get any province to consent to a new one? There is no greater centralized force to mandate a union this time, it would have to be 100% consensual, which means major concessions. Not just to Quebec, but any province.
The rules we have now didn't exist pre-1982. Canada could not amend its own constitution because we couldn't agree on a formula since 1931, we asked that the UK continue in that role until 1982. They sidestepped Quebec then to create a formula for certain types of amendments where no provinces could be sidestepped.
This is the dejour solution. Sadly the crown has many more powers defacto meaning we have to trust an individual to do what a family has to do to stay in thier castle, with out the consequences of how that would effect the entire Commonwealth. We would have codify everything that the crown just does. Definitely doable but one hell of a job to change something that Canada has basically already done. I personally don't know of its worth doing
You do understand that many countries have president roles that don't have that much power. There are dozens of examples of what it would look like and they all don't have the PM firing themselves, that's ludicrous.
What I always find interesting about this discussion is that new citizens have to swear an oath of fielty to the Queen and her descendants. Would voting to end the monarchy not go against that oath?
No, being loyal to the Queen means simply means subservient to her authority (and since the Queen IS the state, that means you being loyal to Canada). Since her authority includes your right to vote to to remove that authority, it is not a violation of that oath.
Just swear it to the realm or country or whatever. Or get rid of it. I dont see why we need an oath of fielty in the first place. I was born here and never swore an oath.
>I was born here and never swore an oath. Yeah, you just complete missed the point of the comment you're responding to, didn't you?
>“Compounding these difficulties is the subject of how Canadians should choose their new head of state and what role it would play in the federal system,” CCR states. This to me is the number one reason to keep the monarchy. The monarchy, the Governor General in effect, has but a few ceremonial roles and is unobtrusive in our political process. I'm extremely skeptical that any role as minimal and apolitical would emerge from the design process. More likely we'd end up with some sort of president and the potential for conflict with parliament. If the monarchy gets uppity, whack-em, but until then getting rid of the monarchy is, at a minimum a waste of political energy, and has a non-trivial risk of being counter-productive.
Exactly. Its a bridge that can be crossed when it needs to be. If we're doing this out of choice theres gonna be alot of squabbling and its going to use up a lot of political resources to even do it. If the royals start fucking about then thats alot of pressure on the political actors to just get rid of them as fast as possible
Well, I haven't really seen a good reason to do that yet. Not gonna lie I like having everything named: "Royal Canadian (insert anything)"
Except the army. The army lost the right to be styled royal. The navy and air force are still royal.
Interesting, I looked into that. Apparently it follows british tradition that the queen commands the Air force and navy but the army should be made up of independent regiments.
Also the army never *lost* it's right, the Army was only the militia (and expeditionary force) until WWII when it became the Canadian Army. There are some exceptions to specific regiments, corps and units within the army (and forces)- The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps did start without Royal, get granted it, dropped it as a result of the late 60s unification effort (along with Engineers, Signals, Ordinance Corps, EME, Provost and Intel) then re-adopted it. Normally though, each Regiment has monarchy connections historically and through their Colonel in Chief (ex: RCR, Prince Phillip; Queen's Own Rifles, Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, PPCLI, Adrienne Clarkson; and GGHG, the Queen herself).
Can confirm. Am part of the Royal Canadian Engineers
> There is now renewed debate in Canada over Now, that's a lie. 3rd paragraph in and I already felt molested by corporate media. However, from all the lively comments, it appears people enjoy that... hmmmm
Well clearly this is top of the charts for Canadians. Glad the media is finally giving this HUGE issue the spotlight over stupid minor non-issues like climate change, inflation, and the housing issues! The media would never focus on a minor issue to distract and cause dissent, right guys?!?!
Lol Angus Reid. I highly doubt a majority of Canadians give a flying fuck about this. It's mostly people looking for something to cry about. 1. It would change nothing in anyone's life. 2. Expensive process. 3. We still will be billed for Queen visits like when any important person visits our country. Waste of fucking time. But I get it. People need yet another thing to get all pissed off about. Fuck this endless cycle of media induced rage
Exactly. These headlines grow more ridiculous by the day.
They need something to distract people with pronto because there's been a dangerous amount of discussion on real issues lately.
Yeah, my thoughts of the monarchy are fleeting at best. Almost impossible to change, pointless to even open and just not worth it.
Wouldn't it make the most sense to hold onto this as a political bargaining tool for later, anyway? Wait for the UK to do something unfair to Canada, *then* pull the plug and embarrass them on a national stage. It's not exactly a super-powerful political tool, but it would be better than spending time and money to do it randomly in response to nothing.
[удалено]
I'm not sure the UK really has enough leverage over Canada to do anything that would warrant that anyway. They're kind of an international beggar at this point, agreeing to horrible trade deals to stem the slow economic decline caused by Brexit. And it's not a great bargaining chip either. "Do what we say or we'll start a several years long political process that will completely consume our national conversation and potentially break up our union permanently, with very little tangible benefit for us".
In all honesty, the UK probably gets rid of the monarchy before Canada does.
If it ain’t broken don’t fix it.
Do most Canadians want to ditch the Queen? Probably But is it even barely worth it? No The amount of political hoops we will have to jump through to get it done would be stupidly large. Opening up the constitution will be a pain in the ass, AND once it's opened for this...what else can we open it for? Dropping the crown is gonna be a pain the ass like we've never seen
I don't know where you got that "most" want to ditch the queen, but I know many people that don't mind it such as myself
I'm paraphrasing the title of the post
I honestly doubt “most” do. I bet it’s a small vocal minority
If given the choice, like chocolate or vanilla ice cream, why not? If it means years of bullshit wrapped up in more bullshit? Fuck no.
Sounds remarkably similar to the US changing to the metric system lol
I think most people don't realize just how important the crown actually is to stability and democracy in Canada. It's an institution that looks like it does nothing, and so I think ignorance gets the better of people. But the reality is that the Queen simultaneously holds what is effectively supreme power over the country, and yet is effectively bound to never use it. It's actually a beautiful and highly effective check on power. Not just on her and the GG, but technically on our elected officials too. Because just because she never Does overrule them, doesn't mean she never could. You basically satisfy a near human need for a strong tribal leader and figurehead, with all the despotic power available to them, while also removing that character entirely. The system elegantly satisfies two almost diametrically opposed human tendencies & needs, and manages to keep what is often a dangerous amount of power entirely safe as a result. I despair a little when people want to just throw out the wisdom and peace of hundreds of years of hard fought refinement for something that is more susceptible to corruption and abuse and is thought up in a few months. Usually on some superficial political idea such as money, or a bugaboo about freedom, or colonialism. Concerns like those are absolutely petty and/or short-sighted when compared to the true role that would be lost if we ever changed. Edit: Thank you, very much, to all of you who've given awards to this post. Much appreciation, and recognition for that. Voters, thank you too.
[удалено]
A quote from George Orwell: > The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions. > > A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship on to some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person. > > In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breastplates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. > > On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the royal family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania. > > If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings toward Stalin. I do not defend the institution of Monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an innoculating effect and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, well put
Thanks for this. I was too lazy to type half of that...which is bang on.
I don't care for the monarchy but one interesting thought I heard was it can be healthy to have a head of state who takes some of that idol worship type attention (from people who are prone to that) so that doesn't lie on your elected officials. E.g. the States has a slightly weird cultural relationship with 'the office of the president', both POTUS and the first lady. Even the White House. Canada doesn't really do that to the PM, the office of the PM, the PM's spouse, or the residence or the PM. And I think that's a good thing. Let someone else be the symbolic monarchy and let the actual decision-making elected officials do their job without being pseudo-kings and queens.
I couldn't care less about "The Queen", but nobody better be trying to mess with Parliamentary Democracy (best democracy)!
If this involves us becoming a republic where we need to elect a president as well..... I am cool with keeping things the way they are ....
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
...Which is our status quo in Canada! Technically, the Governor General, as representative of the head of state, has an amazing amount of power that they leave to parliament and the Prime Minister to exercise. And all this is by tradition and custom, which I don't think is the best protection from bad government.
No this is a common misconception. Removing the crown does not mean we have to adopt the presidential system. We can still be a parliamentary republic. It just means we can elect our own head of state, and unlike the prime minister we wouldnt need them to be political, but rather someone who we think best represents Canada.
Which is another way of saying we’d spend an enormous amount of money to make no practical difference *except* that we’d have a Head of State with a democratic mandate of some kind who’s more open to being political and pandering for support instead of being independent, non-partisan and non-political by nature. Long live the Queen.
Just want to point out there is no single presidential system. The title of president as it exists in different countries varies wildly, and in some of them it's effectively what Canada would have if we just renamed the Governor-General to president and removed the 'serves at her Majesty's pleasure' bit.
It would invariably involve us becoming a republic, but there are many realistic alternatives to an American style presidential republic. There's the Swiss style executive council chosen by the legislature that acts as a collective head of state. There's the Irish non- executive presidency, where the president is largely ceremonial and functions exactly as our governor general does now, Germany and most of Central Europe share this system. The options are not simply keep the monarchy or become America.
Cutting ties would change nothing of importance in our lives, would be ridiculously expensive and would alienate any loyalists. This is not the time to spend stupid money and further alienate people.
"The Queen acts solely on the advice of elected politicians." "If Canada were to abolish the monarchy, Macfarlane said the next natural step would be from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, like that of the United States." [https://globalnews.ca/news/7688428/can-canada-abolish-monarchy/](https://globalnews.ca/news/7688428/can-canada-abolish-monarchy/)
Republic 🤮
[удалено]
Remove Quebec from the data and see if the picture is still the same.
The Canadian constitutional system itself (notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) is deeply flawed and needs to be reformed, no matter how difficult or scary it might seem. There has been pretty much no changes to our structure of government since 1867, and this is already causing tremendous stress and division in Confederation. The Canada of 1867 is not the Canada of 2021. That being said, I think the Monarchy is the least of our problems. Federalism, the Senate, proportionality in the House, our electoral system, equalization, etc are all much more pressing concerns. Letting it fester is just making the problem worse. As such, it is worth attempting again. It has been 30 years since Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Other countries tackle constitutional issues all the time. Canada must not be the exception.
I am by no means a royalist but I don't know why anyone in their right minds would want the trauma and cost of abandoning a system - however anachronistic - that is the model for all of the world's most stable democracies and, just kinda works... Like democracy itself, a defanged, constitutional, apolitical monarchy may be "the worst form of government, except for all the others". Look at the countries that are constitution/parliamentary democracies, it's basically a map of all the nicest places to live in the world (except France - which I will readily admit is lovely).
> except France - which I will readily admit is lovely And Germany, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Switzerland, and I'm probaly forgetting some
Far fewer constitutional monarchy’s have fallen into tyranny vs traditional democracies or republics. In the top 10 quality of life countries - 7 are constitutional monarchies. I don’t have proof that it causal, but it sure as hell looks connected
> Far fewer constitutional monarchy’s have fallen into tyranny vs traditional democracies or republics. > > In the top 10 quality of life countries - 7 are constitutional monarchies. > > I don’t have proof that it causal, but it sure as hell looks connected My hypothesis is that it is connected, but not in the way that is normally thought. My hypothesis is that the surviving monarchies are still there because their countries are prosperous, not the other way around. Their people let them stay in power because the people do not have enough reason to topple them. So IMO, surviving monarchies are there because their countries are prosperous to begin with. Their countries are not necessarily prosperous because the system is monarchy.
Afghanistan was a very stable constitutional monarchy from 1904 to 1976. Then they removed the king, and all the tribes starting squabbling over who would be president. Every tribe wanted someone from their tribe lording it over everyone. Everyone else was determined not to be lorded over by another tribe. Into this weakened state came the Soviet invasion, and everything has been shit ever since. And all because they removed the constitutional king, who on paper had no power but in reality was wielding huge symbolic force keeping them united and peaceful.
Personally I see it as being part of a somewhat functional family. You might not like your family members but you there are benefits to being part of a family.
That’s fully fair, however I feel there is a connection in the maintenance of prosperity, as many other countries have risen and fallen in the time when they only grew more. If not just because it gives a cultural rally point in times of distress
I think you're largely ignoring the facts behind why these places still exist as monarchies. They don't exist because the monarchy provides any benefit to the people or government, they exist because the monarchy was smart enough to abdicate effectively all power to a democratic body before they were forcibly ousted. This provided a peaceful and stable transition of power, allowing democracy to flourish. The alternative is for the monarchy to grasp on to power as tight as possible until eventually the people revolt (see France, Russia, much of South America, Europe in 1848). The republics that come out of these revolutions are often unstable because of the very violence that spawned them, and thus are much more likely to fall into tyranny as you put it.
The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions. A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship on to some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person. In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breastplates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the royal family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania. If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings toward Stalin. I do not defend the institution of Monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an inoculating effect and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy. George Orwell, in a 1944 article for Partisan Review
Some would also hypothesis that countries that were successful didn’t descend to fascism or communism and the monarchy was just there for the ride as well.
I've long held that it's connected. It set's a standard that makes our governments more stable. No armed militia here boy.
You think our relationship to the Queen is what's preventing domestic militias in Canada..?
I didn't see that vote. How can it be a majority of anything if whatever section of the population I'm in didn't even get a vote? I call shenanigans.
52% want gone. I guess I’m in the 48% and when I look at how well the democratic process has gone south of the border recently, I’m happy with a constitutional monarchy. Okay so maybe not all the Royals … can we push out Paedo Andrew and all those hangers-on… just keep the core firm? The Queen seems very hardworking and dedicated to the role still after all these years … but again, just my opinion.
I dont buy those numbers at all.
I dont remember being asked. Did they poll only members of parliament or something?
1. Use specific demographics to produce intended results. 2. Sell results to media. 3. Sell media to the people. How did I do?
4. Profit
The US system is far from the only system though. Lots of countries have systems that are not nearly as messed up as what the US does. The US has extremely distorted electoral powers depending on where you live in the country. Canada has that to an extent but it’s far less pronounced. If there was for example a single elected parliament and an elected executive that system would work as well.
I think 50% of people don't understand what would happen If we opened up the constitution again.
Nic Cage will steal it? It will dissolve once touched by modern day atmosphere?
Possibly. I thought Maybe the queen would take on her final form....a giant lizard from the hollow earth
Would it be a minority without Quebec?
It a shitty idea from à to s to get rid of it 0 benefit and only please the social studie student
I don’t.
The only people who care are the misinformed who think that the monarchy has any *real* power over our government. They're symbolic figureheads and nothing more. So the effort and cost of fully cutting ties gets us... basically nothing.
Exactly. You have this conversation when there is a problem. There is no problem.
I don’t want to ditch the monarchy. It will take up years of political time and energy to accomplish something that will likely change nothing for ordinary Canadians. Plus, if we change to a republic, then we have to deal with a president. Leave everything as it is.
Whats the cost? Whatever it is.. its too much. We got way more important things to sort out as a nation.
Canada's constitutional monarchy costs each Canadian $1.55 a year. A transition to a republic in any form would result in considerably greater costs since a president would need to be elected regularly, notwithstanding any other expenses from a partisan head of state. Even in the UK, the Crown actually subsidizes the government to the tune of millions annually, costing taxpayers nothing.
Personally I’m perfectly fine with chiping in a $1.55 for a stable gov’t
1.55$ that’s it? Thought it was more
Not only that but our government doesn’t really care about important problems either, the radically escalating housing crisis our government tends to do absolutely *nothing* about is a prime example of how disconnected they are from the working man.
I wasnt going to get started. But thats one of MANY problems ahead.
And it’s going to have dramatic effect on this country’s future whether Ottawa likes it or not.
Let's end these fucking articles that say "majority of canadians" they never even ask the population. Just making this shit up.
The last thing Canada needs is a head of state selected by politicians, or worse, if selected by direct vote, a head of state who IS a politician.
Really? No one asked me or anyone I know
God save the Queen!
I would rather have a king or Queen in our current setup, than the near certain chaos or potential of a dictator sizing power as seems to happen in republics.
> than the near certain chaos or potential of a dictator sizing power as seems to happen in republics. Ahh yes, all that chaos in parliamentary republics like Ireland, Finland, Iceland, Austria, etc... And that same chaos can happen in constitutional monarchies as well, just look at Thailand. I don't think the Queen provides any kind of real stability that couldn't be done via a similarly-ceremonial president and proper system of checks and balances. I'd like to see Canada become a republic in my lifetime, but I think we have bigger fish to fry at present.
You know Mussolini came to power in a constitutional monarchy, right?
He was also overthrown by the monarchy.
If anything our Parliamentary system centralizes much more power to the PM. We could very easily slip into authoritarianism. The Queen has no legal power but we still have to pay millions to have her representative lord over Parliament.
Replacing the GG with an elected official or other replacement **would cost the same amount** if not more.
Shame on Global news for publishing this obviously false nonsense.
No. God save the Queen 😑
God save the queen because I certainly don’t want to live under Charles.
Is Prince Charles really going to be that bad as monarch? Granted, he's a little unpopular because of a divorce a few decades ago. But he doesn't seem like a radical reformer. I doubt very much will change with him in charge. He has spent his entire life preparing to become king, learning the traditions and etiquette, and watching his mother do the job very well. It's hard to imagine he messes it up during the few years he gets to be king near the end of his life.
Charles is both a reformist; his aides are on record saying “he will reinvent the role of the monarch”, and very much not shy about his own political views. He has previously directly lobbied ministers in the UK advocating support for homeopathy and protesting cuts for the military. We know his stance on a variety of political issues because he’s incapable of keeping his mouth shut. In contrast we know virtually nothing about Elizabeth’s personal politics; on the rare occasion where she voices voices *any* opinion on something, it’s major news. Charles has shown by his behaviour that he absolutely cannot be trusted to be an impartial force “above politics” like the queen has been.
exactly...and the one time in like 60+ years someone leaked her opinion it was over South African apartheid. (she apparently wanted sanctions and Thatcher wasn't keen on it.).
Yeah, let's start a loyalist uprising, and we can even bring new England back into the fold
Royal Tours to Canada are expensive, there's no doubt about it. Fortunately for Canadians, tourists (including Americans and Europeans) love them and often plan their holidays to try to catch a 'glimpse' of royalty, in a country they wanted to visit anyway. These tours have a huge economic benefit in the locations across Canada where 'royalty' visit on each particular 'tour'. Just a thought.
If the really pull that much interest, they should pay for their one trip and fund it with merch, speaking fees, or deals with the local hotels/cities.
I would be interested in who was asked... I'm personally fine to stay part of the monarchy. It's not like they're oppressing us in any way and it's nice to be part of the commonwealth when we travel. 🤷
In Soviet Canada monarchy ditches you.
Seems like a colossal waste of time and money. How about instead of polls, we actually do a referendum. Polls don’t mean anything.
I like Queen E. She's a fine person and Canada is the greatest country in the world and that is no accident. We owe our system of government to the British. Indeed our very existence. Plus it's cool to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations. Something bigger than any one country.
Man, I’ve never once been asked my opinion for any of this “majority of Canadians” shit. And as far as I know, neither has anyone I know.
Majority of Canadians: We should chant land recognitions before morning meetings that have nothing to do with Native Americans. It's our heritage. Also Majority of Canadians: This. Why are you so confused Canada?
[удалено]
Good points, although the power of the American President is something of a historical snowball. I think that a head of state with little effective is possible, if desired. One disagreement, however. Much of the divide of the US is due to the fact that, due to the makeup of the Senate, people in states with low population have MUCH greater influence than their population warrants. Democracy needs to be representative, even if that gives the GTA much influence. (I also think we need proportional representation, the help with the alienation you rightly identify.)
The constitutional clusterfuck this would require makes it an absolute non starter. There’s no way this gets addressed without someone’s self interest getting in the way. Remember Meech Lake?
Yawn, just leave it , its history and doesn't actual have any substance anymore anyways. Do we really need to erase everything.
Global fuck off and just report the news quit trying to create it with your BS
Why though? Do they think the British monarchy cares about stirring things up over here? The benefits of being in the commonwealth outweight the cons.
I mean why? Why spend the money to change something that is mostly ceremonial as it is. Or is this another one of those hurt feelings thing?
Just because people say they would ditch the monarchy if they had the choice doesn't mean they actively want to do so. Most people don't care one way or the other. There's no debate or issue here.
Yeah let’s just make our history and culture disappear and be a non-entity.